ROCOR vs. ?

尼古拉前执事 · Post by **尼古拉前执事** » Fri 18 July 2003 2:55 pm

Or to prevent people from scrapping their posts or editing them into oblivion.

尼古拉前执事 · Post by **尼古拉前执事** » Fri 18 July 2003 3:00 pm

Actually the one who did this has promised to never delete or edit into oblivion a post that I would not do the same, so I am giving everyone back the editing feature effective immediately.

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Fri 18 July 2003 3:01 pm

Thanks for posting the ROCOR document link Justin.

I'd be interested to see if some of the more "ecclesiologically intense" members of the forum can find much of anything to support their positions using ROCOR's own old documents.

尼古拉前执事 · Post by **尼古拉前执事** » Fri 18 July 2003 10:03 pm

Do you doubt that they can Peter? Often a document will support the Extreme Ecclesionlogy and then another from the same time period will support the Moderate Ecclesiology. Mayhaps it is all a matter of interpretation of the mood?

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Sat 19 July 2003 2:10 am

Nicholas,
I think in reading these types of documents it's almost comparable to reading the Gospels in a way. Anyway can take a verse of scripture, isolate it, and come up with their own version of Christianity based upon it. However, I think with these documents like with the Gospel, we need to see them in their entirety and not just as isolated "proof texts". This should be combined with the living links(traditions) or ROCOR to get the whole picture.

I'm not saying that these documents are equal to the Gospel...don't get my wrong. I'm just saying that documents like this can be treated in a similar way.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sat 19 July 2003 10:25 am

Nicholas

Do you doubt that they can Peter? Often a document will support the Extreme Ecclesionlogy and then another from the same time period will support the Moderate Ecclesiology. Mayhaps it is all a matter of interpretation of the mood?

I agree with what has been said, you can read into documents much that isn't there. I'm very sure the Zealots could read into some of the 2000 documents "pro-MP" sentiments. If we are talking about a fair look at the documents, though, and trying to understand the documents as the authors intended them (and we have to trust them when they say "this is what I meant by document/statment X" at a later date), then I think only the two middle positions (of the four), rigorist and moderate, are defendable. The other two positions, zealot and unionist, are able to be evidenced from quotes and historical happenings, but I don't think they can be supported from the official synod declarations/documents. But then, that's just my view. Obviously some (e.g., ROAC) disagree.

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Sat 19 July 2003 11:30 am

Justin et al,

I would have no interest in trying to prove this or that about the ROCOR - I think the Anathema is as clear as it gets - yet with something so obvious and clear I am still being accused of "reading into it"! Well, it seems "reading into things" works both ways doesn't it?

If anything, perhaps a few ROCOR bishops have believed no grace in the MP and world Orthodoxy - these are cerainly not todays bishops. But inevitably, our Synod was only in communion with the ROCOR because the ROCOR broke ALL communion with "world so-called orthodoxy" in 1965. They ordained our bishops, and not only that, but in 1971 they ordained Matthewite bishops! This, taken in consideration with the 1983 anathema, I would say the position of the ROCOR was HEAVILY leaning toward the position of the GOC.

My have things changed!!!!